Home » EARTH SCIENCES » 2015-1 » Global warming: myth or a fact?

Global warming: myth or a fact?

Abrahamyan Paruyr
Universite de Paris 1 Sorbonne, Paris, France

Field: Earth Sciences
Title:Global warming: myth or a fact?
Paper Type: Research Paper
City, Country: Paris, France
Authors: P. Abrahamyan
Global warming
Anthropogenic cause
Global fraud
IPCC reports
“Skeptics”
Global
Control
Limit of development

The global warming issue is considered to be one of the most important challenges in global agenda. However, the concerns with regards this topic is not certain. Therefore, the paper shows two categorically opposite understandings and points of views of experts and scholars on this issue; where one group believes that the phenomena of global warming is a result of human activities which has had dramatic impact on Planet’s ecologic, social and physical systems, mostly basing on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports.
The second group of experts, so called “skeptics” is totally sure that the term of “Global Warming” is a Global hoax and has nothing to do with the reality and the statements that it is a result of evolution of human conscience. According to them the temperature has been always varying during different epochs. Moreover, they insist that the “global fraud” of global warming has been created by politicians and media of industrialized countries as another instrument of total political and economic control over emerging countries. Their statements are based on various observations and studies, as well as on inconveniences of IPCC reports.
Nevertheless, the paper indicates thought the fundamental differences, both sides accept the current increase of global temperature whether it is caused my humanity or not.

     

        References

        1. Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted 25 August through 2 September 2011
        2. Arrhenius, Svante; Earth Observatory, NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
        3. Conway, Erik. "What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change", NASA, 5 December 2008
        4. Corbyn, Piers; Climate Realists, The role of the spotless sun.
          ://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1771
        5. Durkin, Martin (director) (March 8, 2007), The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary), United Kingdom: WAGtv for Channel 4, event occurs at 2min23–2min31
        6. Global Climate Change, part 2" 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.
        7. Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2014, Total energy consumption. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/energy-consumption-data.html
        8. Gray, Louise. "Fred Singer to speak at climate change sceptics conference", The Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2009.
        9. Harvey, Fiona (9 May 2013). "Charles: 'Climate change sceptics are turning Earth into dying patient'". London: The Guardian
        10. Lindzen, Richard S.; "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus," Regulation (CATO Institute), Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 1992)
        11. Lindzen, Richard S. "Don't Believe the Hype," Wall Street Journal (Opinion), July 2, 2006. Archived July 5, 2006.
        12. NCADAC, Ocean Acidification, in: Ch. 2. Our Changing Climate, in 2013, pp. 69–70. This article incorporates public domain material from the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) document: NCADAC (11 January 2013), Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment. A report by the National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC), Washington, D.C., USA
        13. NOAA, Global temperature change — decadal averages, 1880s-2000s (NOAA), 1 Introduction.
          p. 5. In State of the Climate in 2009
        14. Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A., IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; ed. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN 92-
          9169-122-4.
        15. Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A., IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; ed. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
        16. Pelham, Brett (22 April 2009). "Awareness, Opinions About Global Warming Vary Worldwide". The Gallup Organization. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
        17. Penn Jillette Radio Show, 2006-06-08, Free FM: Interview (Recording)
        18. Perlman, David (December 18, 2003). "Earth warming at faster pace, say top science group's leaders". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 4, 2007.
        19. Pugliese, Anita; Ray, Julie (7 December 2009). "Top-Emitting Countries Differ on Climate Change Threat". Gallup. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
        20. RenewableS 2013, GLOBAL STATUS REPORT, http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_lowres.pd f
        21. Revelle, Roger ; Earth Observatory, NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Revelle/revelle_3.php
        22. Shaviv Nir. ―Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?‖ ScienceBits, April 17, 2006. Archived with WebCite, February 2, 2012.
        23. Spencer, Roy W. (2007-02-26). "NOT THAT SIMPLE / GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW". New York Post
        24. Stocker, T.F., et al., IPCC AR5 WG1 (2013), ed., Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge University
          Press. Climate Change 2013 Working Group 1 website.
        25. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "Article 2". Retrieved 15 November 2005
        26. UNFCCC, Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol: (withdrawal of Canada), 18 January 2012
        27. Williams, Jim (2 April 2013; poll conducted 27–30 March 2013). "Conspiracy Theory Poll Results". Public Policy Polling. Retrieved 28 April 2013
        28. ZOLFAGHARIFARD, ELLIE; Would YOU be underwater if the polar caps melted? Map reveals what our planet would look like if sea levels rose by 260ft. PUBLISHED: 10:11 GMT, 21 April 2014 | UPDATED: 07:44 GMT, 22 April 2014: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2609338/Would-YOU-underwater-polar-caps- melted- Map-reveals-planet-look-like-sea-levels-rose-260ft.html

    Figures

    Figure 1: The hockey stick chart, Climate change over the past 1000 years as shown by the IPCC, http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals- of- all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/

    Figure 2: Global temperature change - decadal averages, 1880s-2000s (NOAA), By NOAA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGlobal_temperature_change_-_decadal_averages%2C_1880s-2000s_(NOAA).png

    Figure 3: Complete Carbon Cycle, http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=2 , adapted from Figure 7.3 in the IPCC AR4
    Figure 4: Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon, Leland McInnes at the English language Wikipedia [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons

    Figure 5: Correlation of global temperature with solar activity, http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

     

    1. Introduction

    How many times in the last two-three decades we heard about the melting glaciers, increasing level of World Ocean, increasing cases of natural cataclysms and that all of this is caused by Global Warming which is the consequence of OUR FAULTS as humans.
    Thus, the majority of scientists, academics, scholars and climatologists assume that the global warming has anthropogenic origins, which means it has been provoked by direct or indirect human activities and that because of greenhouse gases emission over last past 100 years the global average temperature of land and water surfaces has increased about 0.85°C and it is going to climb up with another 1.7°C in the best case, or till 4.8°C at the worse (Stocker, 2013), which significantly affected and changed natural and ecological systems in the planet, as well as considerably influenced the social systems for a long-term and larger scales and will continue to do so.
    Nevertheless, there is another group of respected scientists, academics, experts and also politicians that have extremely skeptical views concerning Global Warming issues, insisting that climate has always changed and the temperature changes are not linear and could not be forecasted correctly since it depends on various factors, mostly from the Sun’s activity’s variations. Besides, we already have had the Ice Ages and Global warming periods before, refusing the statements that the rapid change of climate started since the Industrial Revolution.
    So, it is time to get to the TRUTH. Thus, this paper will help us to dig up the answers on the issue of Global Warming looking from different point of views and perspectives. Therefore, it will try to find out the origins, of the notion of the “Global Warming”? From where it comes? Is it a fact proved by the scientists or just propaganda to make business and an instrument of political manipulation? Or maybe it is a result of a change of human consciousness and the progress of social development, which supposes more responsibility toward the environment and the nature.

    2. How the global warming panic started?

    Every day from the TV screen, on radio, on Internet we have been seeing horrific scenes of volcano eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and other natural disasters that cause of lives of millions of innocent people. BUT ARE WE THAT INNOCENT?
    More and more scientists, scholars and experts claim about the incontrovertibility of the evidence of global warming which, according to them, will gradually destroy the Planet’s ecological, physical and social systems if appropriate measures are not taken right now.
    Thus, environmentalists state that high concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the further ocean acidification will cause of disappearance of many species of flora and fauna, damaging the diversity ecosystems and natural values (NCADAC, 2013).As a consequence, the reduction of biodiversity and the increase of global temperature cause the emerging challenge of food security, especially among the poor communities and indigenous populations that have been surviving due to hunting, fishing and crop production for decades.
    Moreover, according to IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) specialists and reports, Arctic sea ice and glaciers declines will undoubtedly bring up the gradual increase of the world sea level about 59cm until the end of the 21th century comparing to 1992 (until 2m according to other forecasts)(Pachauri and Reisinger, 2007). Thus, a Slovakian amateur graphic designer, Martin Vargic, has created a future map of the World in which he describes the scenario where the world sea level increases around 79cm. Hence, h e declares that to the end of this century the current coastlines in all continents will be considerable changed. Big mega cities such as London, Amsterdam, Venice and Berlin (In Europe), New York, Washington, New Orleans, Miami, Houston (in North America), even entire countries like Netherlands and Denmark will go underwater. Besides, Amazon River will enlarge its banks covering the Northern part of Brazil and in Australia we will see the appearance of an Artesian Sea.
    In his interview to MailOnline journal, Mr. Vargic said that he created the map basing on data of NASA, and that “there is enough ice in Earth’s polar caps to cause about 80–100m rise of the sea level’’ (ELLIE ZOLFAGHARIFARD, 2014).

    So when the World started to think and to talk about Global Warming?

    First time the term global warming has been used by a NASA climate scientist James Hansen on June 1988, while reporting to the US Congress on Global Warming, after which this notion started to be largely used and discussed by public and mass media (Erik Conway, 2008).
    “The temperature changes are sufficiently large to have major impacts on people and other parts of the biosphere, as shown by computed changes in the frequency of extreme events and comparison with previous climate trends.” – claimed Mr. Hansen (Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 1988).
    Nevertheless, the debates and discussions in scientific level on climate change had started about 80 years earlier of Mr. Hansen’s declaration. Hence, Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, was the first who claimed about the influence of emitted carbon dioxide on the atmosphere and on the global climate change, which is provoked by humans due to industrialization (Svante Arrhenius).
    Since then several studies, publications and initiatives had been carried out (such as Roger Revelle’s article in 1982, in SCIENTIFIC AMERICA Journal which hadstrong influence on public opinion (Roger Revelle)), however, the topic became largely actual and came into the political and public agenda since 80s, when the Green Party succeed to enter into the Parliament in Germany.
    Then, on 1987 the Brundtland Commission (the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)) report, named after the former prime-minister of Norway, straightened the public and political importance of the issue. The above mentioned document gave birth to the notion of
    “Sustainable Development”(Our Common Future), which stressed the extreme importance of environmental protection and social equity within the economic development and growth. Afterwards, the Brundtland report became a basis on which the following international initiatives and discourses were developed.
    Thus, on 1992 International environment treaty of the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had been signed (valid since 21 March1994) that had a clear goal to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”(UNFCCC, 2005). Later on, a month later, the Earth Summit (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)) was held in Rio de Janeiro.
    In 1997, during the COP 3, the countries decided to bind their commitment of reducing the greenhouse gaze emissions under the international law. This convention got the name “Kyoto protocols”, which has had two targeted phases for the Parties (mostly developed countries) to follow: 2005-2012 and 2012-2020. Thus, for the first period a bunch of countries, including EU members, signed the Protocols, while the most pollutant country, US, did not ratified it. For the second phase most of the countries left the Protocols bringing different reasons (Canada, Russia, New Zealand, Japan) (UNFCCC, 2012).
    In the following years as well the Parties met several times, during various conferences and meetings (Bali 2007, Copenhagen 2009, Cancun 2010, Durban 2012, Lima 2014 etc.) where they have been trying to take further commitments mostly on the target of keeping the global warming below the limit of 2 °C (1.5 °C in comparison to pre- industrial level).
    However, the numerous conferences and gatherings of the world leaders, the sharp raise of public awareness and transformation of public consciousness about climate change did not bring the Parties (countries, organizations, businesses) into a consensus.
    Moreover, the emerging countries blame the western industrialized ones for the current situation, stating that those countries had already taken advantages and benefits from the nature before, unsparingly abusing its resources, and now the developing countries have right and it is their turn to develop. Thus, due to raising demand of cheap energy in those countries, especially in Asia, boosted the slight increase of fossil fuels (Oil, coal, natural gas) production and exportation toward Asian countries.
    Thus, the data of Total Energy Consumption for the period 2000-2014 has increased from around 9,797 Mtoe to around 13,217 Mtoe including (Global Energy Statistical Yearbook, 2014):

    Global Oil consumption: From 3235 to 3677
    Global Coal consumption: From 4829 to 7649 Thousand Short Tones
    Global Natural Gas consumption: 2508 to 3529 bcm

    So, although the share of renewable energy sources is increasing year by year and already got to 19 % of Global Energy Consumption in 2013 (Global Status Report, 2013), and the public awareness and responsibility on global warming and environment is sharply progressing as well, however, there are no common approaches and decisions in order to reduce greenhouse emissions faster.
    Moreover, the recent studies show that not everything is slight with regards to public opinion on warming climate, even if so many billions of dollars are spent in the form of different grants, foundations, so many organizations are involved, including educational and information.

    2. Shift in human consciousness?

    The scholars assume that the level of awareness and perception of global warming as a threat depends on various factors. For example, Education: more you are educated more you are aware and understand of the issue. Whereas, the studies in China and in India showed up that even the educated Chinese people do not really give an importance to global warming, while the Indians with the same education concern more and consider it as challenge to the humanity (Pugliese et al, 2009). Thus, the cultural and value differences are another crucial indicator to learn on public opinion. Hence, the studies showed that in the Latin American countries, European countries and in the developed countries in Asia, the population strongly believes in global warming and consider it as one of the main threats that humanity faces, also presuming its anthropogenic origin. Meanwhile, in most of the emerging countries, in Middle East, in Africa or in Post-Soviet countries, people have more skeptical views towards the topic of global warming (Pelham, 2009). As a consequence, in the countries where the quality of life is worse and people have to think more about economic and social problems, the environment and global warming are in the second plan.
    Another factor of public opinion’s formation is the demographic distribution of the population into urban and rural areas, assuming that the firsts have better access to information and education thus are more aware.
    However, all those environmental and climate change campaigns, psychological “attacks”and efforts that have been realized by GREENS, environmental organizations, other NGOs, public and local, regional structures and Mass Media, were not enough to convince vast majority of population about global warming threat even in most developed countries. As a result, according to the studies carried on September 2011 by Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, it was noted, that only around 43 % of Britans, 49% of Americans and 52% of Canadians believe that global warming is a direct consequence of human impact and it is a proved fact. While, the other 20 % of Britans and Americans do not consider global warming as an evidence and a fact (Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, 2011). This phenomenon is explained by generally growing skepticism towards the media and increasing access of alternative information.
    Moreover, in 2013, another study has shown that around 37% of Americans follow the so called “conspiracy theory” and assume that global warming is just a history and a tool for political manipulation and the business opportunities (Williams, 2013) And while environmentalists are accusing those people, the skeptic scholars and academics, of being funded by oil and other industry giants, the latters bring the same argues blaming “greens”of serving the politicians and non fossil energy businesses and that there are no undeniable facts of global warming to be caused by human activities.

    So, who is right and who is wrong?

    4. Global warming = global fraud?

    “We will leave to our children a planet, where even we wouldn’t like to live”, “The next year will be the warmest in our Planet”, “We should stop global warming”, and “Global Warming is the cause of all natural disasters”: Those are a few of thousand claims we hear every single day on TV, Radio and in other mass media, from ecological and environmental activists and from politicians. We hear about the horrors we will face in the future if we don’t stop warming the Planet, but we do not hear any undeniable fact or prove.
    So, the paper will bring another view on global warming issue. A view of point of skeptics, explaining who and for which purpose invented the great hoax about anthropogenic global warming, and how benefited from it.
    Every day the newspapers bring new dates and versions apocalypses instilling us that the factories and cars are increasing the temperature around us by emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

    Professor of physics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem Nir Shaviv during one of his interviews said that if they asked him a few years ago he would answer yes, it is CO2. Why? Because just like anyone else he believed in what media had been saying (Durkin, 2017).
    According to him, in the history there have been times, where the concentration of CO2 was 10 times more than now. Moreover, he insists that it is the increasing temperature which causes the raise of CO2 and not the contrary and even if we continue polluting the Earth twice worse, the temperature will increase just with one degree of Celsius by 2100.
    “In fact, there is no substantial evidence which proves that CO2 and other GHGs are the primary cause for the warming, and not some other mechanism. You may have seen articles which point to the contrary, that there is clear evidence, but if you dig deeply into them, you will realize that these are merely suggestions for a CO2 climate link and not evidence.”- claimed Prof. Shaviv (Shaviv, 2006).
    Several prominent academics and scientists like Ian Clark from the department of Earth science at University of Ottawa, famous climatologist Piers Corbin and the owner of WeatherAction Company, Professor John Christy from the UN Commission on Climate Change have been stating that if we have a deep look of the chronology and the history of climate variations we would see that the reason of global warming is not CO2.
    Even in the 4th assessment of IPCC it was clearly declared that the scientists were more than 90 % certain that global warming is a result of human activities and greenhouse gas concentration (IPCC AR4 SYR, 2007). Thus, they confessed that the statements that global warming is a scientifically proved fact are a lie.
    Nevertheless, the fear of people from the notion of global warming has become a efficient instrument in the hands of politicians. Thus, according to the co- founder of worldwide known “Greenpeace”, environmentalist Patrick Moore, the eco movements do not have their primary purpose to protect the environment but the movements of political activists who have tremendous influence on our consciousness. During his interviews he assumed that by praising the peasant life under the cover of anti- industrial campaigns, environmentalists try disturb the developing countries (Penn Jillette Radio Show, 2006).
    The experts are bringing also other facts to defend their skeptical views. They believe that even if the environment is important but in any global problem there will be people who will try to earn on it.
    Thus, Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama on his interview to New York Post on 2007 declared:
    ―Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world – possibly none – have a sufficiently thorough, “big picture” understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem (Spencer, 2007)
    And he continued that to get the funds and financing, the climatologists need a problem, better a global one. So, they create a panic that after they could get funds.
    Nevertheless, the skeptics also agree that nowadays the climate is warming, but during whole the history we have had both the Warm Times and Ice Ages and that there have been times being way warmer than we have now. The climate had been changing, and it did so without our help.
    On the graph showed below the skeptics demonstrate the extreme differences between the reports of IPCC from 1990 and 2001, thus, trying to prove the uncertain position and hidden motivation of the International organization.

    Fig. 1.  Climate change over the past 1000 years as shown by the IPCC.

    Fig. 1. Climate change over the past 1000 years as shown by the IPCC.

    According to the previous observations of IPCC only close to 19th century has stopped the coldest period of our modern history, which was named as Little Ice Age. There have been historical testimonies that starting from 14th century the temperature slightly decreased, so that on the river of Themes in London got frozen and people had been skating on it. In Moscow as well, there have been evidences according to historians, that in 1601 it had snowed even on July and the Moscow River was completely frozen.
    If we go a little further in history we could see that the temperature was much higher than it is now. The climatologists call that period Medieval Warm Period which lasted several decades.
    So, why we are so scared of warming or cooling? Who is promoting its actuality so hard and giving the catastrophic forecasts for the future?
    According to skeptics the first answer will be IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which was founded by UN World Meteorological organization and UN Environmental Program, and which consists of a group of international officials who hire scientists to get findings and conclusions that are in their interests.
    The critics such as professor of biography Philip Scot from the University of London or Paul Writer from the Pasteur Institute of Paris insist that IPCC is not a scientific organization but a political one, where all the decisions are taken by the politicians.
    Moreover, they ensure to have a look through the biographies of scientists involved in IPCC that will show up the absence of expertise in the area. Even part of them does not have any links with science.
    Thus, the main editors of IPCC reports that have their names on the first pages next to titles are not known as expert in the sphere of climatology.
    However, they continue claiming about the coming global catastrophes ignoring the wide differences of forecasts.
    The main idea IPCCans have been always insisting was that the current climate changes and the processes of global warming are provoked by human activities, mainly by CO2 emissions from factories. Nevertheless, they forget to mention that the increase of the temperature has started way before the mass industrialization when the level of production was in small quantities. The highest raise of temperature was captured before Second World War, in the 20s and 30s when we did not pollute the Planet that much. In addition, the temperature started to decrease just after the war when logically it had to be increased because of the economic and industrial boom we had.
    Thus, the decline continued till the end of 70ths, exactly till the time when the new economic crises started (NOAA, 2009). Hence, the skeptics try to prove that there is not a direct link between global warming theory and economic activities.

    Fig. 2. Global temperature change decade average.

    Fig. 2. Global temperature change decade average.

    Besides, the theory of greenhouse gas says that firstly it is the atmosphere, where all those gases accumulate, should be warmed up. Thus, if the warming is provoked by greenhouse effects then in 10-12 km up in the atmosphere its impact has to be much higher than on the surface of the Planet.
    Nevertheless, the scientific experiments with metrological balloons and satellites have shown that it is not the case. The temperature in the majority of regions in the Planet the atmosphere is not warming as much as the surface which directly denies the theory of global warming, assuming that if the surface is warming up then the atmosphere has to be warmed up stronger.
    According to the professor of Meteorology at MIT Richard Lindzen, the findings of ICCP are uncertain since they are based on computer models and “whose relations with the real world are questionable”(Lindzen, 1992). Besides, he also insisted that the problem of global warming is completely political and “that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda” (Lindzen, 2006).
    Another prominent scientist, owner of the award of NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, Professor and one of the lead authors on global warming issue at IPCC John Christy during his interview to the National Public Radio on 2003 claimed that he criticizes the scientists who declare of catastrophic and horrific predictions about the increasing temperature and rising of the sea level”(Perlman, 2003).

    Fig. 3.  The global carbon cycle.

    Fig. 3. The global carbon cycle.

    Thus, the skeptical group of scientists agree that it is not because of increasing level of CO2 that the temperature is going up as a consequence of human activities, since the human emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is only about 29 Gigatonnes when the emissions with regard to the nature is around 800 Gigatonnes. So, the real reason is the SUN. The total amount of energy produced and consumed by mankind is nothing compared to the energy of sun and it is because of the solar activities, particularly because of the activities of spots on the surface of the sun that the level of CO2 and the temperature in the Planet change. By the way, famous meteorologist and the owner of business WeatherAction Piers Corbyn’s technique of long term weather forecast is based on the studies of solar activities and solar spots. Therefore, he got a nickname ― “supper meteorologist” by mass media, due to his very much precise results and predictions. Besides, he claimed that the climate change and global warming have been never leaded by CO2 and will never be so.
    Moreover, he stated that currently the world is going toward global cooling and not warming according to his researches and studies of solar spots’ activities (Corbyn).

    Fig. 4. Solar activity events in 14C.

    Fig. 4. Solar activity events in 14C.

    During history the scientists have been counting the number of spots on the sun and have been thinking about its direct relation to the Earth temperature.
    Thus, on 1893, British Astronomer Edward Maunder remarked that in the period of Little Ice Age there were no spots on the sun which the scientists named after his name Maunder Minimum.
    As a result, the scientists showed that there is a direct correlation of global temperature with the solar activity and that their curves on the graph for the last decades are almost identical.

    Fig. 5. Temperature and solar activity. 120 years.

    Fig. 5. Temperature and solar activity. 120 years.

    So, the skeptical group of experts has demonstrated that the solar activity and the tensions of magnetic fields have increased twice over 20th century and that it is the solar activity that provokes the climate changes including global warming the melting glaciers in Arctic.
    Fred Singer, the head of State Service of Meteorological Satellites of US, argues about the anthropogenic origins of global warming, stating that thousands years ago it was warmer than today and that even if we put much more carbon dioxide nowadays, nevertheless it will never be enough to cause global warming while the environmentalists extremely exaggerate the risks. “The atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it causes warming” – claimed Professor Singer (Gray, 2009).

    5. Instrument of politics and business

    So, why people are still so scared and the scientists and media are calling about the coming danger while there are many proves that show the contrary?

    The answers are Politics and Business.

    It was since 1970ts that public debates on global warming came up. Before, all the discussions were about global cooling and upcoming new ice age. But in 70s the scientists have noticed the raise of the temperature. Secondly, the strikes of coal industry miners started in 1984-1985 when the government dismantled the mines and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has used the global warming factor to calm down the manifest ants and to convince the population meanwhile advocating the interests of nuclear power businesses. She argued that the nuclear energy is not emitting CO2 and also it will help the country to be energy independent.
    Therefore, she started to promote the theory of global warming and addressed to the scientists to prove this theory, offering them huge funds.
    Another perfect example of manipulation with global warming theory for the political reasons was Al Gore, US ex-president and Nobel Prize winner for peace. After losing the presidential elections in USA in 2000 and being forgotten by the media, Gore started a new campaign advocating global climate change issues. His book and documentary An Inconvenient Truth shocked the world and brought him a large popularity. His critics were too skeptical about his “new hobby”since during the last 30 years of his political career he never spoke about climate change and himself having several expensive houses and private jets, he got a nickname “carbon billionaire”. Besides, he was accused for advocating “green”energy businesses and personally being involved in it.
    Moreover, the experts are bringing another serious reason of expansion of ecological extremism in the world connecting it with the fall of Berlin wall and the collapse of Soviet Union, when there were no more restrictions and barriers, and thousands of political activists and pacifists became unemployed, thus they started to use the “green” language to cover their real motivations that were mostly antiglobalistic and did not have anything to do with ecology. As a consequence, in 90s the theory of global warming transformed from just an ecological problem into a large political campaign being in the center of attention of governments that started to distribute billions of dollars of funds, grants, and research financing just to promote further globalization of the problem. And the huge part of those research funds was given to build computer models. But the problem was that all those models cannot observe the data which are not programmed by its creators. Besides, all the models have been built around one hypothesis that the reason of the global warming is CO2 ignoring the factors of solar activities. In addition, there are many data that are not observed and available yet which make the computer models inefficient for observation weather variations.
    So, even if computer models are not reliable sources, nevertheless their forecasts are getting more and more terrifying.
    The scientists even insist that due to the global warming the number of global natural disasters will decrease as the main reason for those catastrophes is the differences of temperature in tropics and poles, while the global warming implies the decline of those differences. Moreover, they state that thousands years ago the arctic ices were melting faster and the temperature in Greenland was much higher than it is now. Also, the melting processes always existed and the arctic ice sizes have been increasing and decreasing. It is just due to the information age we are told about that nowadays.
    So, it is clear that thousands of jobs depend on the theory of climate change and its billions of dollars funds. It is a huge business that involves actors from all disciplines.

    6. Tool of total control of the third world

    The skeptics affirm that the theory of global reduction of emissions is a very efficient and universal mechanism of global control.
    This theory is very much anti-development one, and skeptics state that it is working mostly against the developing countries where there are cheap energy sources such as oil and coal, but because of those restrictions in the form of global protocols or conventions, as well as the promotion of green energy, these countries are forced to stay away from their own resources while having so many social problems like poverty, hunger and healthcare.
    The experts are sure that all the propaganda carried out by media and western politicians about global warming, the upcoming catastrophe is a tool to disturb the developing countries to have industrial success and increase the quality of life of their populations in exactly the same way that the industrialized countries already did.

    7. Conclusion

    This paper showed the two different points of views and believes with regards to global warming. On one hand, a part of scientists, environmentalists and experts insist that the planet is warming and the main reason of it is human impact, predicting terrifying forecasts and claiming to act now to save the future. On the other hand, there is another group of scientists and experts, who are very much skeptical concerning to global warming issue in general, declaring that there are no any undeniable evidences proving its existence and that the notion has been promoted by western industrialized countries, politicians and media in order to limit the development of emerging countries, create another mechanism of global control and advocate the related businesses.
    However, two sides agree in one thing: the temperature is increasing. Though, for environmentalists it has anthropogenic origins related to human activities, industrialization and greenhouse gases emissions, while for skeptics it is related to historical climate variation conditioned by solar activities and natural reasons. Moreover, the NATURAL causes of global warming have been always IGNORED by the government-fund research, since according to skeptics they serve to special interests and follow a special agenda.
    Nevertheless, even if there is no consensus among the scientists, anthropogenic cause is not obvious and global warming issue is largely merged with political and business interests, whatsoever it is clear that we are polluting the nature not depending whether it is US who provoke the global warming or not.
    Hence Prince Charles has been criticizing the both sides: environmentalists and skeptics, comparing the current situation of the Earth with a dying patient.

    “A scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine can’t wait. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests. He has to act on what is there.” (Harvey, 2013) – claimed Charles.

    References

      References
    1. Angus Reid Public Opinion poll conducted 25 August through 2 September 2011
    2. Arrhenius, Svante; Earth Observatory, NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
    3. Conway, Erik. “What’s in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change”, NASA, 5 December 2008
    4. Corbyn, Piers; Climate Realists, The role of the spotless sun.
      ://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1771
    5. Durkin, Martin (director) (March 8, 2007), The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary), United Kingdom: WAGtv for Channel 4, event occurs at 2min23–2min31
    6. Global Climate Change, part 2″ 100th Cong., 1st sess., 23 June 1988, p. 44.
    7. Global Energy Statistical Yearbook 2014, Total energy consumption. https://yearbook.enerdata.net/energy-consumption-data.html
    8. Gray, Louise. “Fred Singer to speak at climate change sceptics conference”, The Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2009.
    9. Harvey, Fiona (9 May 2013). “Charles: ‘Climate change sceptics are turning Earth into dying patient'”. London: The Guardian
    10. Lindzen, Richard S.; “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus,” Regulation (CATO Institute), Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 1992)
    11. Lindzen, Richard S. “Don’t Believe the Hype,” Wall Street Journal (Opinion), July 2, 2006. Archived July 5, 2006.
    12. NCADAC, Ocean Acidification, in: Ch. 2. Our Changing Climate, in 2013, pp. 69–70. This article incorporates public domain material from the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) document: NCADAC (11 January 2013), Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment. A report by the National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee (NCADAC), Washington, D.C., USA
    13. NOAA, Global temperature change — decadal averages, 1880s-2000s (NOAA), 1 Introduction.
      p. 5. In State of the Climate in 2009
    14. Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A., IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; ed. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN 92-
      9169-122-4.
    15. Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A., IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; ed. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC.
    16. Pelham, Brett (22 April 2009). “Awareness, Opinions About Global Warming Vary Worldwide”. The Gallup Organization. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
    17. Penn Jillette Radio Show, 2006-06-08, Free FM: Interview (Recording)
    18. Perlman, David (December 18, 2003). “Earth warming at faster pace, say top science group’s leaders”. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 4, 2007.
    19. Pugliese, Anita; Ray, Julie (7 December 2009). “Top-Emitting Countries Differ on Climate Change Threat”. Gallup. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
    20. RenewableS 2013, GLOBAL STATUS REPORT, http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_lowres.pd f
    21. Revelle, Roger ; Earth Observatory, NASA. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Revelle/revelle_3.php
    22. Shaviv Nir. ―Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?‖ ScienceBits, April 17, 2006. Archived with WebCite, February 2, 2012.
    23. Spencer, Roy W. (2007-02-26). “NOT THAT SIMPLE / GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON’T KNOW”. New York Post
    24. Stocker, T.F., et al., IPCC AR5 WG1 (2013), ed., Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge University
      Press. Climate Change 2013 Working Group 1 website.
    25. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Article 2”. Retrieved 15 November 2005
    26. UNFCCC, Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol: (withdrawal of Canada), 18 January 2012
    27. Williams, Jim (2 April 2013; poll conducted 27–30 March 2013). “Conspiracy Theory Poll Results”. Public Policy Polling. Retrieved 28 April 2013
    28. ZOLFAGHARIFARD, ELLIE; Would YOU be underwater if the polar caps melted? Map reveals what our planet would look like if sea levels rose by 260ft. PUBLISHED: 10:11 GMT, 21 April 2014 | UPDATED: 07:44 GMT, 22 April 2014: www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2609338/Would-YOU-underwater-polar-caps- melted- Map-reveals-planet-look-like-sea-levels-rose-260ft.html

    Figures

    Figure 1: The hockey stick chart, Climate change over the past 1000 years as shown by the IPCC, http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals- of- all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/

    Figure 2: Global temperature change – decadal averages, 1880s-2000s (NOAA), By NOAA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGlobal_temperature_change_-_decadal_averages%2C_1880s-2000s_(NOAA).png

    Figure 3: Complete Carbon Cycle, http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=2 , adapted from Figure 7.3 in the IPCC AR4
    Figure 4: Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon, Leland McInnes at the English language Wikipedia [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons

    Figure 5: Correlation of global temperature with solar activity, http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html